Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 159 (HP)

Akhil Sood v. State of H. P.

2019-02-01

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2019
JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. Since both the petitions arise out of a common FIR, hence they are liable to be disposed, of, by a common order. The instant petitions, stand instituted by the bail petitioners, under Section 439 Cr.P.C. wherethrough they seek an order for theirs’ being released from judicial custody, whereat they stand extantly lodged, for theirs’ allegedly committing offences punishable under Sections 498A, 306, and, Section 201, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, in case FIR No. 132 of 2018 of 21.12.2018, registered at Police Station, Drang, District Mandi, H.P. 2. One Akhil Sood, is, the son born from the womb, of the, previous deceased wife of co-accused Aneet Sood. Co-accused Aneet Sood thereafter contracted a marriage with one Surendra Sood. The afore marriage, was, solemnized in the year 1996. However, the brother of the victim as well as her sister, disclosed, that immediately subsequent to the solemnizing of marriage interse Aneet Sood, and, the afore Surendra Sood, rather quarrels erupting amongst them, however, theirs’ being resolved. The prosecution witnesses, in their statements, recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., unanimously disclose, qua, in the year 2004, their deceased sister/victim being subjected to physical cruelty, yet, the afore dispute, occurring interse the victim, and, Aneet Sood, rather stand settled, and, the victim being sent to her matrimonial home. Since the year 2004, upto, the commission of suicide, the, statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., of, the brothers, and, sister of the deceased, unveil, qua neither physical or mental harassment, being purportedly perpetrated, upon the victim, by the co-accused. The commission of suicide by the victim occurred, on 20.12.2018, and, the penal instigatory act bearing proximity, vis-a-vis, the commission of suicide, is, comprised in a telephonic communication, made, 24 hours earlier thereto by the deceased, to her sister, with a narration therein, that, co-accused is rather harassing her, owing to shifting of an almirah, from, her room. The afore purported instigatory act, though, bears proximity, vis-a-vis, the illfated incident, yet, prima facie, it also enjoined to be discerned whether it constitutes, the, relevant potency, for, hence goading, the, commission, of, suicide, and, also concomitantly qua the afore offences being well founded. The afore purported instigatory act, though, bears proximity, vis-a-vis, the illfated incident, yet, prima facie, it also enjoined to be discerned whether it constitutes, the, relevant potency, for, hence goading, the, commission, of, suicide, and, also concomitantly qua the afore offences being well founded. For making a determination, qua the aforesaid facets, the factum, that, the alleged incriminatory act, is merely grooved, in, the shifting of the almirah, and, when the afore act, is minimal in nature, and, could be resolved, as, were the earlier disputes (a) thereupon it appears that the afore purported instigatory act, does not carry, the relevant penal potency, for this Court, hence construing qua it constituting an instigation, for the deceased, to, commit suicide. 3. Furthermore, since the co-accused one Shweta, has been granted bail by the learned Sessions Judge concerned, and, when the said order rather has not been challenged by the State, thereupon with the afore order hence acquiring conclusivity, hence in parity therewith, rather the bail applicants are afforded the indulgence of bail. 4. Consequently, when at this stage, no evidence has been adduced by the prosecution, demonstrating, that in the event of bail being granted to the bail applicants/petitioners, there being every likelihood of theirs’ fleeing from justice or tampering with prosecution evidence, thereupon, the indulgence of bail, is, granted to the bail applicants/petitioners, on, the following conditions: (i) That they shall furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs. 3,00,000/, each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Mandi, H.P. (ii) That they shall join the investigation, as and when required by the Investigating agency; (ii) That they shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police; (iii) That they shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court; (iv) That they shall deposit their passport, if any, with the Police Station, concerned; (v) That in case of violation of any of the conditions, the bail granted to the petitioners shall be forfeited and he shall be liable to be taken into custody; (vi) That they shall apply for bail afresh when the challan is filed before the trial Court. 5. 5. In view of above, the petitions stand disposed of. Any observation made herein above shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall decide the matter uninfluenced by any observation made herein above.